Archive

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:NinjaRobotPirate but I already knew. Why do you think I started off with a talk discussion instead of a bold edit? (And no, you don't need to tell me this notice is required before sanctions can be instituted. I have no intention to make any edits before consensus is reached) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested, I wanted to let you know Raegan Revord of Young Sheldon's article is currently at User:Alden_Loveshade/Raegan_Revord. I hope to see it return to main space. Responsible edits are welcomed there. Alden Loveshade (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your repeated removal of a relevant see also at The Queen's Gambit (miniseries). Since your bold edit was reverted, please now establish consensus first, otherwise this is edit warring. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop viewing disagreement as edit warring. Also, you do realize your clumsy revert also removed the brief annotations that was added since? Please add those back. CapnZapp (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with your edits is not the disagreement. My problem with your edits is you repeating the same edit in spite of the fact that you are aware that there is no consensus for it. And that is almost the definition of edit warring. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to add back the things you dropped and neglected to fix. CapnZapp (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider that a fix, not did I neglect them. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're going after User:YoungForever a little too aggressively. She's one of the good guys, she ought to be on our side. What we should probably try to do is find a source raising similar concerns that is more widely accepted. How about this one? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CapnZapp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Monty Don's American Gardens".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CapnZapp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Monty Don's Japanese Gardens".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my edits to bump your edit count. Your comment is nonsensical, and the edit is not defensible. Lexein (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh ? CapnZapp (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Lexein here. Your edit summary on The Queen's Gambit does not make any sense either. nyxærös 10:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you specify which edit(s) you are talking about Lexein & Nyxaros, don't expect a response. CapnZapp (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed a "decline" from a review with the edit summary "rm submission declined, wasn't (re)submitted for AFC review".[1]

The decline is from 12/28.[2] The previous submission was on 12/15.[3]

Did I miss something? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That second AFC was an "empty" AFC and the appropriate action - had I caught it in time - would have been to revert 103.154.54.87's edit as a test edit (since that IP user has made only that single edit, no reason to assume vandalism). While I have nothing against Modussiccandi's decision I felt it unnecessary to saddle the draft with a second decline since it doesn't bring anything new to the table. CapnZapp (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to leave messages on here, so hope you see this! 70.23.34.152 (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Sarah[reply]

You're welcome! CapnZapp (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know better than to template the regulars. (To anyone reading this: by "other editors" Wally means himself). CapnZapp (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CapnZapp, I don't really understand how Wikipedia works systematically, so I don't know how to summon you to a talk page for an article, but the name of Toryn Farr is relevant. Non-notability is not relevant to article contents per [[WP::NNC]]. She has been identified as such in multiple different works (not just Tales of the Bounty Hunters), and the name of the character she played, even if it's not in the original film, is entirely relevant information to include in the article. Hppavilion1 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]